The United States - A Case Study Of The Non-Existent Democracy True Face of Democracy Introduction Democracy is defined as the freedom possessed by a people which bestows upon them the right of self-legislation according to what they deem fit. In other words, it is the rule of the people, by the people, for the people. The ability to determine how to rule and what laws to enact translates to sovereignty. In democracies, sovereignty belongs to the people. Human beings reserve the right to legislate, formulate policies, and set up societal orders based on their likes and dislikes, regardless of how these likes and dislikes are determined: either through rational arguments and the intellect, or religious beliefs and rituals, or sentimental inclinations and attachments, etc. Capitalism is the economic system and most dominant factor of the Western ideology. This ideology is based on the creed of Secularism-the separation of Church and State. The fundamental idea behind Secularism is that human beings are free from obedience to Divine laws and regulations in terms of how they should conduct their lives. In other words, human beings cannot be restricted by the commands of a Divine entity. Rather, the ability to formulate laws, rules, systems, regulations, canons and constitutions which determine how they should behave as individuals and as societies is the human beings sole prerogative. Although, secularism initially resulted from the struggle between the Church and heretic medieval philosophers, it is not restricted to distancing Christianity from the affairs of human beings. Rather, it restricts any Divine way of life to merely personal beliefs of individuals, depriving this way of life from regulating the temporal affairs of humans. For arguments sake, if Islam can be secularized to an exclusively spiritual, ritualistic and personal belief from its correct form as a comprehensive spiritual-political ideology, then this mutilated form can be easily accommodated within the room allowed to religions in a secular society. The Capitalist system is the practical manifestation of the Secularist idea, i.e., a system which human beings formulated because they accepted the fact that it is their right to produce such a system. For sake of discussion, we will refer to the Western ideology as Capitalism since it constitutes its driving force and major component. Although Democracy was not born in the United States, the US is the defacto leader and upholder of democracy around the world. It portrays this image both to those who live under its sovereignty and to those beyond its borders. Its people are taught that democracy and freedom are essential values that no civilized society can live without. Loyalty to democracy, liberty and freedom is entrenched and engraved in the minds of its citizens from a very early age. This ideological attachment continues to be fostered and nurtured throughout their lives to such an extent that any society not possessing these values is deemed as a society not worthy of living in. The United States is also one of the leaders of the Capitalist world, embracing and applying the ideology of Capitalism. The ideas of freedom to private enterprise, freedom to own property, freedom of expression and freedom of belief are fundamental values cherished by its people and carried by the state. Thus, democracy and Capitalism are essential grassroots ideas in the American society at large. This article shows that democracy as a system - specifically in the US - is dominated by Capitalism. Furthermore, intrinsically speaking, democracy alone cannot and does not possess the ability to function as an independent system especially when Capitalism is the economic system of the society. Rather, as observed in democratic states such as the US, democracy is subjected to and is dominated by the system of Capitalism which renders democracy a secondary or non-existent system. Thus the sovereignty of the people under democracy remains a myth. In fact this sovereignty belongs to a very small group within the society: the Capitalist elite. Democratic Origins? Democracy and freedom are considered two fundamental ideas that formed the basis for the creation of the United States. Many believe that the founding fathers - those responsible for the birth of the nation - were struggling for the implementation of these core ideas so that every individual would live in peace and happiness. However, their background and what they worked for was something very different. By 1700 there were fifty rich families in Virginia, with wealth equivalent to 50,000 pounds ( a huge sum those days), who lived off the labor of black slaves and white servants, owned the plantations, sat on the governors council, served as local magistrates. In Maryland, the settlers were ruled by a proprietor whose right of total control over the colony had been granted by the English King... In the Carolinas, the Fundamental Constitutions were written in the 1660s by John Locke, who is often considered the philosophical father of the Founding Fathers and the American system. Lockes constitution set up a feudal-type aristrocracy, in which eight barons would own 40 percent of the colonys land, and only a baron could be a governor... The leaders of the early Boston were gentlemen of considerable wealth who, in association with the clergy, eagerly sought to preserve in America the social arrangements of the Mother Country. By means of their control of trade and commerce, by their political domination of the inhabitants through church and Town Meeting, and by careful marriage alliances among themselves, members of the little oligarchy laid the foundations of an aristrocratic class in the seventeenth century Boston... (Zinn 47) By the years of the Revolutionary crisis, the 1760s, the wealthy elite that controlled the British colonies on the American mainland had 150 years of experience, had learned certain things about how to rule. They had various fears but also had developed tactics to deal with what they feared. (Zinn 53) Those upper classes, to rule, needed to make concessions to the middle class, without damage to their own wealth or power, at the expense of slaves, Indians, and poor whites. This bought loyalty. And to bind that loyalty with something more powerful even than material advantage, the ruling group found, in the 1760s and1770s, was a wonderfully useful device. That device was the language of liberty and equality, which could unite just enough whites to fight a Revolution against England, without ending either slavery or inequality... (Zinn 58) The men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class. George Washington was the richest man in America. John Hancock was a prosperous Boston merchant. Benjamin Franklin was a wealthy printer. And so on. (Zinn 84) Far too many consider the Constitution as a work of genius put together by wise, humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality. In reality, as Charles Beard, a twentieth century historian, wrote in his book The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution: Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is the making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes which rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government. (Zinn 89) Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds. (Zinn 90) Furthermore, the negative attitudes of the founding fathers towards democracy clearly show this case. In fact, they carry typical attitudes any capitalist would hold regarding democracy and can be best expressed by the founders themselves. Elbridge Gerry thought: The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.... (Beard 197). James Madison, in Federalist #10 stated: [Democracies] have been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Alexander Hamilton viewed the nature of the relationship between the governed and the governors as follows: All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government (Beard 199) Thomas Jefferson, at the time of Shays rebellion, said: I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. (Zinn 94) The fathers were firm believers in the capitalist system - not in democracy. Democracy was of no use to them because they realized that it did not serve their interests. The foundations they laid were not democratic in nature. In fact, they are based on the money is power principle. James Madison acknowledges this point by stating that the basis for division - the reason behind the clash of interests - in society is economic: ...the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. (Federalist #10) Of course, this should come as no surprise, for Adam Smith - the Father of Capitalism, in his work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, states: Civil authority, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. (311) Wealth as a Source of Power Every society has a specific set of ideas, beliefs, principles and objects which that society values. These valuable entities extract their value from the ideology the society believes in and implements. A valuable entity possesses the potential to fulfill some need or instinct in an individual. It provides the necessary ingredients for actions that result in acquiring the valued entity which in turn satisfies the associated instinct and/or organic need. In Islam, for example, ideas such as the unity of the Ummah or the obligation to give wealth in the path of Allah are valued entities. Similarly, objects such as the Kabah are valuable to the Muslims and thus carry potential for the Ummah to act in order to protect them. Likewise, Islam assigns no value to the White House, and hence it would not produce the same reaction amongst the Muslims in a similar situation. In Capitalist societies, objects considered valuable by the ideology - and thus to the people - have primarily financial value associated with them. In other words, entities such as capital, property and natural resources are considered valuable because they are forms of wealth, i.e., have financial worth. Thus, wealth is also considered a valuable object that is sought ruthlessly, protected fiercely and maintained carefully. A perpetual demand to acquire these valuables by individuals necessitates an associated attached cost in acquiring them. Thus, the acquisition of property or the sale of gold has an associated price attached. Those who possess the means of undertaking the cost to acquire the valuable object are the only ones who can actually acquire it. Thus, the wealthy have an advantage over the non-wealthy in their ability to acquire valued objects since only they can pay the associated cost. This idea, when coupled with the idea of unlimited needs and insufficient resources results in the satisfaction of most of the needs of the wealthy by the procurement of more of these insufficient resources. This naturally causes Capitalistic societies to have a highly stratified distribution of resources, i.e., the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very small sector in society. As Grover Cleveland, a democrat running for President in 1884, remarked: No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am the President... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions. (Zinn 252) In 1893, Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer, addressing the New York State Bar association said: It is the unvarying law that the wealth of the community will be in the hands of the few... The great majority of men are unwilling to endure that long self-denial and saving which makes accumulation possible... and hence it has always been, and until human nature is remodeled always will be true, that the wealth of a nation is in the hands of a few... (Zinn 254) As an example, Paul Krugman, in his article entitled The Right, the Rich, and the Facts shows that the top 1 percent of families in the US held 37% of the total net worth of the nation in 1992, a 6% increase from 1983 (American Prospect, Fall 1992, pp. 24-25). Figures from Michael Parentis Democracy for the Few indicate that 0.2% of the US population own approximately 60% of its corporate wealth; 1.6% own 80% of all stock, 100% of all state and municipal bonds and 88.5% of corporate bonds (8). The movement of wealth in society can be gauged from the US Congress figures which indicate that the top 1 percent of families captured 60% of the entire gain in national personal income in the 1980s (Congressional Budget Office, the Congress of the United States; 1992). Further, the change in US average family incomes between 1979 and 1987 shows that the top fifth income recipients gained 18.7% in income whereas the bottom 5th recipients suffered a 9.2% income loss (Ways and Means Committee, US House of Reps.). This evidence points out the strikingly skewed and abnormal division of wealth within society, which is considered normal in Capitalism. The ability to possess valued objects - necessary for the survival of human beings - by a small group of individuals results in the survival of the rest being dependent on the small group. The ownership of valued objects by the wealthy gives them an advantage over the remaining individuals since they control what satisfies the needs of the masses. The result of this inequality in wealth is an imbalance or unequal distribution of power. This is the dilemma facing democracy. On the one hand, it promises equal representation for all. On the other, it cannot divide power equally amongst the people - if at all this is possible. An unequal distribution of power naturally results in the more powerful having a louder voice and stronger leverage in determining the rules and systems that are applied in society. The rich have an upper hand over the rest because they have the means to deny the fulfillment of their needs for the rest. Democracy is but a mirage in such a situation since it is impossible to create a balanced power base for all without an equal distribution of wealth in a Capitalist society. Organized Interests The protection of valued entities in a society is ensured and enforced in the severest of ways by those individuals and groups who stand to gain or lose the most from these objects against any attempts to destroy, damage or dilute them. Some refer to this distinct group by the term establishment. The term Establishment seems to have been invented in Britain to refer to an inner circle of important ministers, top civil servants, editors of quality newspapers, and a miscellany of academic and other public figures all capable of informal consultation with each other. (Macridis 56) Capitalists consider the giving up of individual and ownership rights a major threat to their existence for it not only decreases their power and their competitive edge over others but also their ability to survive. In other words, it is against their interests. The powerful are subjected to lose a great amount in the event of unfavorable or critical circumstances. It is irrational to think that they would not want to fully protect their vast interests in such conditions. Surely they have the power and necessary drive needed for a fierce defense of their rights and valuables. Consequently, in the event of a clash of interests between the wealthy and the rest, the former will have a better chance of securing their rights over the latter, either through the system or by force or if needed by negotiations. In such cases it becomes necessary to make sure that the largest number of interests are protected for the largest amount of time from the largest number of perceived threats. This is done in a number of ways, e.g., the creation of a certain public opinion through the media - discussed in a later section, or through interest groups. Of course, a stronger interest is one which has more leverage and can be voiced more forcefully. Once again, economic strength translates directly to power trampling the democratic concept of equal opportunity. Democracy, equal rights for the populace and equal access to the government turn out to be another hoax, whereas differential access becomes a reality of the system. Interest groups and lobbies have become a permanent feature of the US political system. The best organized and most effective ones are those with the most financial resources. Corporations and other moneyed-interests are overwhelmingly over-represented in the government. According to Greenberg and Page, in The Struggle for Democracy, Corporation related interest groups form about 46% of the representation in Congress (249). Elections cannot be won without large sums of money and support from influential lobbies and elite backed interest groups. Candidates usually are provided with the necessary finances by few very rich individuals or organizations (Democracy for the few p.209). The Media and Public Opinion An example of how economic power translates to the ability to control is the establishment owned mass-media. Public opinion is an extremely potent mobilizing force in any society. Any system that can control public opinion and channel it in a certain direction is able to exert substantial power over that society. The manufacture of public opinion is a method of mental control upon people which results in comprehensive control. A study of the American mass-media, reveals a corporation like setup of a few major media companies who monopolize the flow of information (Inventing Reality 27). The power of information has indeed been an effective tool for forming and channeling thoughts and concepts in society. No people are willing to let their needs remain unsatisfied due to the control of a few. When such a condition is exposed and takes root in the people, the few will no longer remain in power for long. As mentioned before, the formulation of public opinion will mobilize the people to remove the oppressors. The U.S. elite realize this as a potential threat to their interests and thus understand that one of the ways to continue their control is to pacify the individuals in the society. The best means of pacification is the process of co-opting. The continued existence of the American melting pot is due to this very concept. Integration and assimilation of all kinds of groups is an extremely soothing tactic that is used most effectively. Mind-control by the media and the educational system is taken a step further by the establishment by containing and redirecting public opinion so that people remain aloof from the cause of their problems. Parenti, in Democracy for the Few, notes the relationship between politicians and public opinion and how uninitiated public opinion is harnessed, steered and thus contained: When these [popular] sentiments are aroused to a certain intensity, leaders will respond, either by making minor concessions or by evoking images of change and democratic responsiveness that are lacking in substance. Leaders are always responding to the public, but so often it is with distracting irrelevancies, dilatory and discouraging tactics, facile reassurances, unfulfilled promises, outright lies or token programs that offer nothing more than a cosmetic application to a deep social problem. (303). This kind of behavior is expected from those who stand the most to lose from a drastic change. As James Madison stated: ...the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects. (Federalist #10). This idea of containment is a reality even today. To fully comprehend whether the passage of a certain law or policy is a democratic victory or a containment measure requires an in depth study regarding it. Questions such as: what is the actual law? What are the consequences? Which group(s) benefits from it? In what ways? How does this policy affect the people? need to be answered. The comprehensive answer to all of these questions is beyond the scope of this article and can be examined at a later time. However, a brief example of containment of public resentment is the Civil Rights Movement where the untamed growing militant and separatist sentiments were channeled towards a much mellow and pacifist approach by Martin Luther King, Jr. Public opinion in a democratic society is not randomly formed by a watchdog and independent media - as is claimed by democracy. Public opinion is a very specific set of ideas carried by a considerable portion of society in such a manner that it can be considered the opinion of that society. It is impossible for such a uniform, well-defined and power-wielding set of ideas - the public opinion - to materialize by a random mixture of thoughts from various independent and unconnected sources. The molding of public opinion requires massive public focus and mobilization by raising very specific issues. Consequently, this task can only be accomplished by an efficient and purposeful mechanism, i.e., the media machinery which is owned and operated by the powerful. The freedom of expression supposedly granted to the people by democracy thus remains non-existent due to the control of the Capitalists. This is the case with the US media. As Parenti states: Ten business and financial corporations control the three major television and radio networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), 34 subsidiary television stations, 201 cable TV systems, 62 radio stations, 20 record companies, 59 magazines including Times and Newsweek, 58 newspapers including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times, 41 book publishers, and various motion picture companies like Columbia Pictures and Twentieth-Century Fox. Three-quarters of the major stockholders of ABC, CBS, and NBC are banks, such as Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Citibank, and The Bank of America (Inventing Reality p.27). Corporations and Other Institutions The media machine is not the only institution owned and operated by the wealthy elite. Their base of control has always been the multinational corporation. Almost one third of the top 500 US corporations are owned by one individual or family. In the relatively small span of 37 years between 1950 to 1986, industrial assets owned by the top 100 corporations grew from 39.8% to 61.1% (Thomas Dye p.20). As C. Wright Mills notes: The corporation is the source of, and the basis of, the continued power and privilege of wealth. (116). Therefore, it is not surprising to note that despite the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 being enforced, the end of the 19th century found corporations merging at a tremendous pace. Approximately one-third of the US manufacturing assets were merged into 318 giant corporations between 1898 and 1904, producing a combined capitalization of $7.3 billion. (Robert Reich, The Work of Nations chap 3.) It is very natural for corporations to be a source of power in a Capitalist society due to their being the driving force behind its economic well being. The interests of the society are determined by whether they agree with the interests of corporations and industrialists. Wars are fought for the objective of protecting jobs and concessions and exemptions are granted by the government to companies if some of its laws decrease or hinder their profits and interests. When the president of GM in the 1950s and then Secretary of State, Charles E. Wilson, was asked whether he had the ability to make a decision in the U.S. favor at the expense of GM, he replied that he could, however, he did not see such a problem happening: I cannot conceive of one because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country. (Robert Reich, pp. 47-48) Besides the media and the multinational-national corporations, the setup of other non-profit service institutions is also highly indicative of a strong upper class accent. Educational, medical, and cultural institutions like universities, hospitals etc. are controlled by a board of trustees or a board of directors who belong to the same richer upper echelons of society - specifically the industrialists. As in the case of corporations, members on these boards are the final and ultimate authority on policy implementation and have the last word in the hiring and firing process of employees and in effect have physical control over the institution. Control in modern times requires more than force, more than law. It requires a polulation dangerously concerntrated in cities and factories, whose lives are filled with cause for rebellion, be taught that all is right as it is. And so, the schools, the churces, the popular literature taught that to be rich was a sign of superiority, to be poor a sign of personal failure... In those years after the Civil War, a man named Russell Conwell, a graduate of Yale Law School, a minister and author of best-selling books, gave the same lecture, Acres of Diamonds, more than five thousand times to audience across the country, reaching several million people in all. His message was that anyone could get rich if he tried hard enough, that everywhere if people looked closely enough, were acres of diamonds. A sampling: The men who get rich may be the most honest men you find in the community... Let me say here clearly... ninety-eight out of one hundered of the rich men in America are honest. This is why they are rich. This is why they are trusted with money. This is why they carry on great enterprises and find plenty of people to work with them. It is because they are honest... Conwell was a founder of Temple University. Rockefeller was a donor to colleges all over the country and helped found the University of Chicago. Huntington, of the Central Pacific, gave money to two Negro colleges, Hampton Institute and Tuskegee Institute. Carnegie gave money to colleges and libraries. Johns Hopkins was founded by a millionaire merchant, and millioniare Cornelius Vanderbilt, Ezra Cornell, James Duke, and Leland Stanford created universities in their names. The rich, giving part of their enormous earnings in this way, became known as philanthropists. These educational institutions did not encourage dissent; they trained the middlemen on the American system-the teachers, doctors, lawyers, administrators, engineers, technicians, politicians-those who would be paid to keep the system going, to be loyal buffers against trouble. (Zinn 256) Conclusion The system of democracy has never been able to grant sovereignty to all people. It has failed miserably time and time again in protecting the freedoms it promises them. Throughout its history it has been used as a tool by Capitalism to protect the interests of the capitalists. Democracy as an idea is a dysfunctional one and unable to ensure even its own existence and dominance, let alone be able to address the problems of mankind. The reasons behind the failure of democracy are the unrealistic and inhuman objectives it seeks and the imaginary and hypothetical picture it paints of the equality of human beings. Democracy is unable to solve the many problems faced by human beings due to its human origins, i.e., it is a man-made system which destines it to failure from the onset. The history of Capitalism is witness to the infinite injustices and oppression caused to humanity. It is an exploitative system which produces and intensifies problems instead of providing solutions. It ensures the dominance and power of a handful of individuals over the entire society. It is another glaring proof of the fact that human beings are incapable of producing a system which brings justice to all mankind and not to small cliques in society. The United States has always been a Capitalist society even though it promotes the dual sided images of democracy and freedom. The continued application of Capitalism under the guise of democracy is easily apparent to anyone who carefully analyzes the setup of society. Power to influence and implement decisions lies exclusively in an infinitesimally small group of individuals and families, who not only control most of the countrys resources, wealth and industry but use them for their benefit and interest regardless of the consequences to the rest of the world. The dominance of Capitalist states like the U.S. over the rest of the world has resulted in untold miseries and ever increasing problems facing mankind today. The solution for the problems of humanity is not possible without the realization of two very important yet rarely understood ideas: all manmade systems are bound to fail due to the human beings inherent biases and limitations in terms of his nature, knowledge and ability to legislate. Not comprehending this fact will lead mankind in yet another vicious circle, ending with the same oppression, corruption and chaos that has flowed from Democracy and Capitalism. Consequently, a system capable of issuing correct solutions, ensuring justice for all and eliminating all corrupt practices can only be produced by an unbiased and unlimited source of knowledge: the Creator, Allah (swt). l BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Beard, Charles Austin, An economic interpretation of the constitution of the United States. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1913. 2. Chomsky, Noam, Deterring Democracy. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992. 3. Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988. 4. Chomsky, Noam, Necessary Illusions: Thought control in democratic societies. Montreal: CBC Enterprises, 1989. 5. Chomsky, Noam, The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many. Berkeley: Odonian Press, 1993. 6. Dye, Thomas, Whos running America. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990. 7. Greenberg, Edward S., Serving the few: Corporate Capitalism and the bias of Government policy. New York: Wiley, 1974. 8. Greenberg and Page, The Struggle for Democracy. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1995. 9. Krugman, Paul R., The Right, the Rich, and the Facts. American Prospect; Fall 1992. 10. Macridis, Roy C., Foreign Policy in World Politics. Prentice-Hall, 1972 11. Parenti, Michael, Democracy for the few. New York: St. Martins Press, 1980. 12. Parenti, Michael, Inventing Reality: The Politics Of Mass Media. New York: St. Martins Press, 1986. 13. Parenti Michael, Power and the Powerless. New York:St. Martins Press, 1978. 14. Prewitt and Stone, The Ruling Elites. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. 15. Shwartz, Michael (ed.), The Structure of Power in America: The corporate Elite as a ruling class. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1988. 16. Schattschneider. E., The Semi-sovereign People. Hinsdale: Dryden Press, 1975. 17. Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952. 18. Wright Mills, The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. 19. Zinn, Howard, A Peoples History of the United States. Harper Perennial, 1995 Khalifornia Journal v2 No.3, July-September 1997 [Collected from a Brother]
Posted on: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 05:09:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015